Thursday, November 03, 2005

DumDum TV

A rant follows ... readers beware.

I saw on some TV show [CSI, I think] the intellectual guy having some discussion of abortion with some female. Now, I don't expect to see anything different from the Christians-are-illiterate-'n'-uneducated line from Hollywood or secular culture, but what I saw takes the cake.

The intellectual guy mentioned --- with a gotcha! tone of voice that would make a mushy-brained atheist freethinker envious --- that Lev 17:11 "The life of the flesh is in the blood" made the notion that a united sperm and egg a human being a notion that was unbiblical. The intellectual guy then mentioned that the discussion is based on "science" anyway, and not "theology."

I'll mention again that the intellectual guy said all this with a complete condescending tone of voice, and it seemed obvious [to me at least] that he was being portrayed as a modern voice of reason that had successfully resisted outmoded forms of thinking.

There's just one small problem with the intellectual's line of thinking here. The small problem is that he cannot seem to understand context, and, related to this problem is the moral failing of intellectual laziness of cracking open a Bible and looking at what the passage discusses in question.

FYI, dear readers, Lev 17:11 comes in a discussion of the prohibition against eating blood which follows a discussion of animal slaughter. My Hebrew being but a distant memory, here is the immediate surrounding context for Lev 17:11 [Yahweh speaking] courtesy of my NET translation, the closest at hand to my desk presently:

[10] "Any man from the house of Israel or from the foreigners who reside in their midst who eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats the blood, and I will cut him off from the midst of his people, [11] for the life of the flesh is in the blood. So I myself have assigned it to you on the altar to make atonement for your lives, for the blood makes atonement by means of the life. [12] Therefore, I have said to the Israelites: No person among you is to eat blood, and no resident foreigner who lives among you is to eat blood."

Hmmmm.....doesn't sound like Yahweh is discussing abortion or anything related to abortion here. And, it sure seems that, given the context, we're talking about animal blood and animal flesh primarily. It also doesn't take the superior educational background that I have to see that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" doesn't say anything to the issue of "when human life begins" as the secular side in the abortion debate would put it. This is cultlike "exegesis" where you latch onto a word [here it is "life"] and impute onto it the shading you want, context be damned. The stakehouses and Kingdom Halls out there would be quite proud of this exegesis.

In the end, it makes for a great cocktail-party line by the intellectual guy. Got them uneducated rube Bible-thumpers again! Too bad the writer as well as the character on the show are lacking when it comes to basic literacy.

BTW, I don't object to the disagreement. A fertilized egg is, so I'd contend, a human being, deserving of due process, to say the least. [I personally consider it a category mistake [of a basic nature] to say that a fertilized egg "becomes" a human being, but that is a topic for another day.] And, unlike most of the squishbrained leftists, I can defend quite capably my positions in the arena of rational inquiry. But, some writer somewhere felt as if he could attack my position [and those of other Christians] by the moronic reasoning exhibited. You'd think the writers would be able to tell what the context of a passage is. At least give a semblance of an argument.....sheesh.

But for the writer[s], popping bubble wrap seems beyond their intellectual capacity, so even a rudimentary question of context is a question beyond their feeble mentality.

As for the forced dichotomy of science and theology, I wonder if the writer[s] have any notion that science smuggles in metaphysical and theological assumptions. Naahhhhh...

OK, rant over. That felt great, by the way. Very cathartic. Now I'll go take out the rest of my preening angst in the weightroom.

On a worldview-related note regarding pseudointellectuals trying to have their cake while eating it too, see Steve Hays' most recent comments on Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. I second his comments. Good movie, idiotic & confused worldview. [But it was fun to watch, and that's what counts for 90% of the grade in my book.]

OK, now the rant is really over. I have a session now with a treadmill and the associated weight machines for you're jealous.


Blogger GrannyGrump said...

Actually, Grissom slapped Cat down by having life begin at 18 days. And the Biblical cite was necessary to offset Cat's snippy, snide remarks. Grissom ended up allowing for embryonic stem cell research, but not allowing for abortion of a verified pregnancy. So he's a middle ground.

I think the goal of giving Cat her snotty remark was to provide "balance" to the women -- WOMEN are prolife?!?! -- who respect life from conception. They presented "the other side" in Cat, and "middle ground" with Grissom.

So actually, overall, considering that it's network TV, it was remarkably balanced in that it only tipped strongly pro-abortion rather than COMPLETELY pro-abortion.

Thursday, November 10, 2005 3:51:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home